I'm posting this here as it is not a classified ad (well, yet at least) but looking for opinions/thoughts. Thinking they would be far better than the my AF-D Nikkor 35mm/2D, AF-D Nikkor 24mm/2.8D and AF-D Nikkor 50mm/1.4, I bought the Zeiss 25mm, 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.0. These are ZFs, not ZF.2, which makes no optical difference. Anyhow aside from being reportedly sharper in the center (based on test reports, not my own data), and having slightly better flare control (T* is still the best), performance is not what I had hoped for. I only really shoot at relatively small apertures, so better wide open performance does not matter to me. I want sharpness across the frame at middle apertures and smaller, and in this respect the Zeiss lenses do not appear to be anything spectacular. They really seem to be optimized at the center - perhaps Zeiss assumes most people will use them on DX sensors. Distortion correction is disappointing. The 50mm 1.4 ZF has virtually the same, unimpressive amount of barrel distortion as the AF-D 50mm 1.4 Nikkor, and the 35mm 2.0 ZF has more barrel distortion than the AF-D 35mm Nikkor. While the 25mm ZF has less a little less distortion than the AF-D 24mm Nikkor, it is still not as well corrected as it should be in my opinion. Of course the build quality of the ZF lenses is excellent and they are a joy to hold and use, but I want my dollars going to optics first, beauty second. The Other ZF I own is the 21mm Distagon. This one is another story. Excellent, and better than anything else I could get in that focal length for an SLR. I am quite disappointed in how the manufacturers (at least Nikon and Zeiss) are designing their premium and/or prime lenses these days, seemingly putting all their attention into "bokeh" and speed (and for very high prices I might add). I am concerned with neither, and I'm being left out in the cold. I can't even get a damn aperture ring on Nikon's new lenses $2,000 plus.